Thread: Is Harry Potter Literature?

Harry Potter is not literature.

Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<

According to the definition of literature, it is.

Whether or not you like it is a different matter entirely.

My daydreams are usually composed of your dismemberment TT. But I mean that in the sweetest way possible... kinda.

I think what you want to say is that Harry Potter doesn't qualify as good literature, and that people should stop making such a big hoo ha about it because it's completely unworthy. How's that?

Do we really need another Harry Potter thread?

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Do we really need another Harry Potter thread?

LOL. Funny.....and sadly probably true.

I have read the HP books and I never viewed them as literature.

I have read the HP books and I never viewed them as literature.

Uhm, then I'm really confused about the definition of the word literature... I mean, it is a book, that follows a story line. How is it not literature?

I think I still associate the word "literature" with "classic literature".

Its a bit of a vague definition really.

By that definition Dr.Suess is literature.......comic books are literature.

Well, I personally think that anything you can read is literature. Well, anything that comes in book-form really. I mean, not labels on food. But books, comics, maybe even magazines....

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Do we really need another Harry Potter thread?

Good point. That's it, I refuse to post on any more threads concerning Harry Potter.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Do we really need another Harry Potter thread?

Yeah.

It's time to move on to other better literatures.

Originally Posted by valeca

According to the definition of literature, it is.

Whether or not you like it is a different matter entirely.

Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...

Originally Posted by Mike C

Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...

I don't much like this definition, as it's quite hard to apply.

First, who gets their word in? Is this about author's intention? Publisher's intention? Reader's perception?

Take the Potter-books. I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important. I also doubt she's out to advance the art of writing or to achieve compositional excellence (although she does appear to be willing to learn; the first chapter of book 7 is a well written as the next-to last is atrocious - statement of taste involved). From both books and interview I'd argue that the priority, for Rowling, is story telling.

She's not making Bloom's Canon and I can see why not (though he's overshooting his mark and missing the point, I feel).

Will Harry Potter still be around in, say, sixty years? Ask me again in sixty years.

If it isn't, I want nothing to do with literature.



Harry Potter is the greatest book ever written.

Originally Posted by Mike C

Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...

This must mean Shakespeare isn't literature. Or a lot of the classics, really.